Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22160553›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2012

Can we really do computer-aided drug design?

Matthew Segall

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Drug Discovery and Design through Computational Innovations.Current computer-aided drug design · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Matthew SegallOptibrium Ltd, Cambridge, UK. matt.segall@optibrium.com

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we discuss what we mean by 'design' and contrast this with the application of computational methods in drug discovery. We suggest that the predictivity of the computational models currently applied in drug discovery is not yet sufficient to permit a true design paradigm, as demonstrated by the large number of compounds that must currently be synthesised and tested to identify a successful drug. However, despite the uncertainties in predictions, computational methods have enormous potential value in narrowing the range of compounds to consider, by eliminating those that have negligible chance of being a successful drug, while focussing efforts on chemistries with the best likelihood of success. Applied appropriately, computational approaches can support decision-makers in achieving multi-parameter optimisation to guide the selection and design of compounds with the best chance of achieving an appropriate balance of properties for a drug discovery project's objectives. Finally, we consider some approaches that may contribute over the next 25 years to improve the accuracy and transferability of computational models in drug discovery and move towards a genuine design process.

Indexed as

Computer-Aided DesignComputer SimulationDrug DiscoveryHumansLigandsModels, MolecularProtein BindingLigands

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.